4 ms·
You're right - those are the usual litany of legitimate objections to this kind of study - and they are good ones. So we addressed them: 1. The trials are blin
by hmahncke 14y ago
You're right - those are the usual litany of legitimate objections to this kind of study - and they are good ones. So we addressed them:
1. The trials are blinded, with more advanced studies using active controls (e.g., ordinary computer games[6], adult education[1,2,3]). Study staff administering cognitive assessments are always blind, and participants are blind in studies with active controls. The human consent forms describe the studies as comparing two forms of cognitive training. This is a good blind - in one study the wife of a control participant called my to tell me her husband loved the cognitive training because the art history education made him go to the museum more with her :-)
2. Study [3] in my post was conducted by Mayo and USC (and funded by Posit - the money has to come from somewhere), studies [4],[5],[6] were conducted entirely by independent academic investigators.
3. Active control groups control for the placebo/Hawthorne effect.
As I see it, the only meaningful question is which methods work in practice - and the studies show us that. If what you mean is do we know what the mechanism of action is, we are speeding up information processing flow through the brain and making it more efficient - speaking loosely, we're improving signal/noise ratios. Reference [1] in my post has an extensive conceptual background to this approach. And we've seen that with studies of EEG/working memory [7]
[7] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2904363/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2904363/
- gwern 14y ago> You're right - those are the usual litany of legitimate objections to this kind of study - and they are good ones. So we addressed them: But you guys were apparently unable to address Robert's questions: http://blog.sethroberts.net/2013/03/09/a-few-answers-from-posit-science/ http://blog.sethroberts.net/2013/03/09/a-few-answers-from-po...
- hmahncke 14y agoSeth Roberts sent me a list of questions and I answered all of them. He then selectively quoted my answers. It's his blog, and there's nothing I can do about it.
- tel 14y agoThat's wonderful! I'd love to talk with you more about the process you guys went through validating your tech. I'd love if you send me an email and we could find a time to talk more about it.
- lutusp 14y ago> Active control groups control for the placebo/Hawthorne effect. Easier said than done: "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" : http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal... > As I see it, the only meaningful question is which methods work in practice ... That's a dodge around any requirement for scientific evidence, because without rigorous science, anything "works in practice". Astrology, as just one example -- many members of the public would be surprised and offended to hear that astrology has no evidentiary support whatever. When the studies you funded have been replicated by independent laboratories, then you will have crossed the threshold of science. Until then, it's not science, it's marketing -- especially when you think it's constructive to say, "the only meaningful question is which methods work in practice".
- hmahncke 14y agoI sincerely didn't mean to be unconstructive - my apologies. By "working in practice", I mean working in randomized controlled trials. I agree that anecdotal self-report doesn't mean "working in practice" (or much of anything).